Journal pudge's Journal: Good Bye, David Brooks 45
I have given up on David Brooks.
I wish he'd give up on me.
He's never been a strong conservative, but he often pushed for conservative ideals. But now he's abandoned those. He puts himself in the "Reformer" camp of the Republican Party, and notes:
[The Reformers] argue that the old G.O.P. priorities were fine for the 1970s but need to be modernized for new conditions. The reformers tend to believe that American voters will not support a party whose main idea is slashing government.
I won't bother with going over the entire piece, but I'll just note that if you are not in favor of small government, you are not a conservative (and you're a poor Republican, though one with a long tradition). Small government is the path to liberty. You cannot have liberty without small government. And if you're not willing to push for small government, you shouldn't be a Republican.
The problem is not that American voters won't support slashing government, it's that the Republican Party has not given the people a reason to want to. This is why conservatives desire another Ronald Reagan, not because of some mythical ideal of this Pure Conservative Leader who will lead us to a Promised Land, but because Reagan like no one else was able to communicate why small government was better, and he got the country to agree with him. This is what matters to us.
Brooks bemoans the fact that there is "Republican Leadership Council to nurture modernizing conservative ideas." Brooks is basically saying to us conservatives -- it's not how he sees it, of course, but it's how we see it -- that liberty itself is old-fashioned. We should just give in to socialism, give in to big government, give up our freedom. But the reason we're conservatives is because we reject that. This is what we fight for. It is our political raison d'être.
It's all about liberty. This is the bottom line. This is why our nation was founded, this is why our forefathers died, and it is the only reason why I bother to care about politics at all. For the Republicans and "conservatives" who will abandon liberty, I'd rather they just went all the way and abandoned the Republican Party. (Maybe after over 100 years of this uncomfortable coalition between moderates and conservatives, it's finally time for a split. Maybe not. Ask me again in a few months.)
I don't know whether Brooks is a "coward" or "sellout." I doubt it. Being a coward or sellout would mean that he had held to conservative principles, but one who would so easily abandon those principles in the face of adversity probably didn't.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Hear, hear! (Score:1)
Absolutely agree. You're either in it for "popularity" or your "principles". He (possibly unknowningly) points out that this is the crux of what he's writing about in his closing, summarizing thesis, beginning the last paragraph:
What he's basically saying is that, as we all know, society continues to veer Left, and he's opining that the only way the GOP can win elections is to follow that trend. (Referred to
Re: (Score:2)
He should look up what the root word of "conservative" means -- his usage of it in that sentence doesn't make any sense, it's double-speak.
Indeed.
There is a majority of this country that clamors for liberty.
The Republican Party should be their voice. It has not been, not for quite awhile.
Re: (Score:1)
I wish I could still believe that. Maybe after this economic crisis passes, and if people act differently, I won't be so convinced as I am now of the contrary.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I could still believe that. Maybe after this economic crisis passes, and if people act differently, I won't be so convinced as I am now of the contrary.
Well let's face it, people do not think in these terms. They are scared, they hear "bailout," and they say "yes, please."
But when the crisis is over, they don't want high taxes and government telling them what they can and can't do.
James Madison talked about how war was a big threat to liberty because it convinced people to give up their liberty. Perpetual war == perpetual loss of liberty. The same principle applies here. You can't take the views people have when they're scared and think that's where th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True, but big bailout (and it will get much bigger if the credit default swaps market tanks) will cost so much money, that we will be *forced* to pay high taxes.
Oh, I am not saying the bailouts are OK. I am just saying when it's all over, the people will regret it, and that right now they are for it mostly because they are afraid, not because they actually have sat and thought about it and believed this to be in the best long-term interests of the nation or themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
It would be nice to build a national platform that is compatible with (most of) the Libertarian party, because that party seems to have held onto the smaller government platform better than the national leadership of the Republican party.
I don't see the party losing enough inertia to actually disappear, or fade into an actual competitive race for 2nd with a 3rd party like the Libertarians.
And I don't see the Libertarian party actually attracting many people besides the ones they already have (wacky tobacky
I still wonder if you ask the proper question (Score:2)
I think the Constitution, and the factoring of tasks into levels of government is the issue.
Got no problem with a state that wants to be more French than France.
I do have a problem with those clowns subverting the Fed and turning the whole country into France.
Brooks' head is buried so deep in the Progressive sand that he doesn't grasp that he's a RINO.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think 'small government' is the issue.
I do!
I think the Constitution, and the factoring of tasks into levels of government is the issue.
Yes, but WHY does the Constitution guarantee that the federal government will be limited? Because small government is the only path to liberty. (It is not a sufficient, but a necessary, condition.) The further away the decisions are made, the less of a voice you have, the less liberty you have.
And liberty is all I really care about in politics.
Got no problem with a state that wants to be more French than France.
I do, very much. It goes against what America stands for: self-determination. However, the good part is that I don't have to live there.
Brooks' head is buried so deep in the Progressive sand that he doesn't grasp that he's a RINO.
I reiterate my philo
Re: (Score:2)
WHY does the Constitution guarantee that the federal government will be limited?
Because anyone with a shred of engineering sense grasps "less is more".
Pedagogically, you can beat the "small government" drum all day, and your face is all blue and celtic.
My contention is that until you let a state economy, say, Mass., go into tax-constipation overload, your face shall only get bluer.
For those who treat socialism as a secular religion, nothing short of sheer ruin will shake their faith.
To quote Airplane!: "They knew what they were doing when they got on that plane. I say, 'Let them c
Re: (Score:2)
WHY does the Constitution guarantee that the federal government will be limited?
Because anyone with a shred of engineering sense grasps "less is more".
It's mostly because of liberty. The more decisions they make, and the higher level they make them, the less liberty you have.
For those who treat socialism as a secular religion, nothing short of sheer ruin will shake their faith.
So stop fighting and let it happen?
Not gonna do it. If it happens, it will happen over my objections. Besides, someone has to be around to say I Told You So. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
The acme of skill is to get the goober to play the ITYS card themself, internally.
Re: (Score:2)
Why you play the ITYS Card
I was kidding, hence the winky face. The Socratic Method still works.
That said, I do think it is worthwhile to have people who were saying what we should be doing, so that when people go looking for alternatives and arguments, they find them.
Re: (Score:1)
Isn't it effectively the same question? Don't you think govt. limited to its constitutional role would be "small govt."? Do you think when some people say they're for "small govt." they mean other than limited to its constitutional role?
An interesting example. From a legal standpoint, neither would I. Bu
Re: (Score:2)
I can say 'I do not specifically object to social welfare spending, just not at the federal level'.
This blunts the 'conservatives are callous' argument.
Re: (Score:1)
Well, it closes off one avenue for attack and opens another -- Liberals can just counter with their "well but the Constitution is a living, breathing, evolving document you see".
I agree that making an appeal to constitutional fidelity is easier, but probably too abstract to be the most effective -- I think people would be more convinced by the "small govt." angle, as its benefits to them are more tangible (as long as they're explained, of course).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Liberals can just counter with their "well but the Constitution is a living, breathing, evolving document you see".
Kinda funny - the people who claim it's living are are the same ones who killed it. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Considering that he writes for the NY Slimes, it's highly probable that he's "gone native." His perspective has become so warped by the prism of his surroundings that he doesn't realize how far to the left he's slid himself. The same has happened to a sizable chunk of the Republican contingent in DC (including John McCain).
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, the irony about "McSame" is that BHO will likely prove "McNotMuchDifferent".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which reminds me - I have a few friends who supported Obama more than anything else, because he was so anti-Iraq with his "bring 'em home today" stance back in the primaries.
He no longer holds that stance. His view is to bring them back as soon as he can do so without adversely affecting the security of Iraq.
Which, as you note, has been McCain's view since the beginning.
Oops.
Re: (Score:2)
I think there's a slight difference between "I'll give Iraq 18 months to get their security act together" and "I'll wait until Iraq gets its security act together, even if it takes 100 years!"
And yes, McCain, did say "100 years".
Re: (Score:2)
I think there's a slight difference between "I'll give Iraq 18 months to get their security act together" and "I'll wait until Iraq gets its security act together, even if it takes 100 years!"
Obama doesn't say the former (he rescinded it), and McCain never said the latter.
Does it make you feel better to invent things to demonize your opponent?
And yes, McCain, did say "100 years".
Yes. Obama said "100 years" too. But neither one of them said anything remotely implying that they would keep the troops in Iraq 100 years waiting for Iraq to get its act together. On the contrary, McCain explicitly said at the time he would not keep our troops in Iraq for a long period of time in "harm's way," which necessarily implies the OPPOSITE of w
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.google.com/search?q=mccain+ [google.com]"100+years"
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.google.com/search?q=mccain+"100+years" [google.com]
No, you're wrong.
He did say "100 years." He NEVER SAID OR IMPLIED keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years if that's how long it takes "until Iraq gets its security act together."
It never happened.
I defy you to provide a quote showing it.
What he said was that he would not have a problem keeping a "presence" in Iraq for that long IF they are not in harm's way.
Which WOULD NOT BE THE CASE if Iraq does not have "its security act together."
Please educate yourself and stop spreading lies.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, how do you maintain a military presence in a country that has an active insurgency without putting them in harm's way? And if you could, why would you want to?
But you're right, he didn't say he'd keep the war effort going a 100 years. Instead he endorsed the foolish notion that America can exert its military muscle without putting its people at risk. My mistake.
Gawd, how have you managed to be an editor at Slashdot for 10 years without understanding the difference between (
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, how do you maintain a military presence in a country that has an active insurgency without putting them in harm's way?
Um. The obvious answer is he would not keep them there if there WAS an active insurgency.
And if you could, why would you want to?
It's like you didn't listen to what he said. He referenced South Korea. Why do we have troops there? You can disagree with it, but the reasons why are obvious: so we can have a force there in case it is needed in the region.
he endorsed the foolish notion that America can exert its military muscle without putting its people at risk.
You're lying or ignorant. Are our troops in South Korea at risk?
Gawd, how have you managed to be an editor at Slashdot for 10 years without understanding the difference between (a) misunderstanding a quote, (b) repeating second-hand information and (c) a deliberate lie?
I did not say you told a lie. I said you were spreading lies. Two different things. The former implies you know it is false; th
Re: (Score:2)
No, actually, telling somebody that Obama is a Muslim is not a lie. It's just sloppy logic. (Barack Hussein Obama is a name with Arabic origins. Arabs are Muslims. QED.) Perhaps somewhere there is some right-wing operative who's saying this even though he knows it's not true. But everyone I've heard spreading the Obama/Muslim meme honestly believe's it's true, and thinks they have good reason for believing it. Rationalizing your opinions is not a lie.
Which is not to say that I approve of using bad logic to
Re: (Score:2)
No, actually, telling somebody that Obama is a Muslim is not a lie.
Yes, it is, for me (and I used myself in the hypothetical example). I know it is not true, so it's a lie. I did not say "if someone says ...," I said "if *I* said."
You operate on the assumption that people who disagree with you "disregard the truth".
No. That's a lie. I have never done this in my life.
Let's recap: you initially said that McCain wanted to keep troops there for 100 years while Iraq is insecure. But if you listen to what he said, he specifically denied that, saying he would only keep troops there if they were not in danger. McCain explicitly said he was NOT saying what you
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't bother to really find out what McCain actually said...
Oh for krisakes, grow up. Do you go look up the original quote for every news story? I admit I got the quote wrong. (Though I don't see the corrected version as reflecting much better on McCain.) Deal with it and move on.
You're not going to answer my moderation question are you? Can't blame you.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you go look up the original quote for every news story?
If I am going to be asserting that someone said something that I am trying to make him look bad for ... yes, yes, I do.
I admit I got the quote wrong.
And yet you're getting nasty because I correctly pointed out your reckless disregard for the facts.
Deal with it and move on.
That's my line.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not going to answer my moderation question are you? Can't blame you.
You're not going to blame me for not answering a completely irrelevant, off-topic question? Gee, thanks. Don't do me any favors.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not "getting nasty". I'm accusing you of bad logic and intemperate rhetoric.
When you studied journalism, did you skip the class on objectivity?
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see, this is a journal post about David Brooks. So this entire thread is "offtopic". Funny that being ontopic wasn't a concern until I touched a nerve.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not "getting nasty". I'm accusing you of bad logic and intemperate rhetoric.
You falsely accused me of bad logic, yes.
You got defensive and shot back at me personally when I correctly identified what you did.
When you studied journalism, did you skip the class on objectivity?
See, you're doing it again.
Re: (Score:2)
You got defensive and shot back at me personally when I correctly identified what you did.
I respectfully disagreed with your characterization of Obama versus McCain on Iraq. You fired back with "Stop spreading lies." Pots and kettles, dude.
Re: (Score:2)
I respectfully disagreed with your characterization of Obama versus McCain on Iraq.
No, you didn't. You instead spread lies about what McCain said.
You fired back with "Stop spreading lies."
Exactly.
Re: (Score:2)
So, anybody who interprets a news story different from you is "spreading lies"? Yeah, that's rational.
Re: (Score:2)
See, now you're just out-and-out lying.
You know this is not a matter of "interpretation." You admitted you were wrong, and I was right, on the facts.
Please do not lie.
Please do not make me say it again.
Re: (Score:2)
Sigh. You're the one who keeps using loaded, nasty language, and yet I'm the one who's dishonest, abusive and defensive. Do you see a pattern here?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I see a pattern: you keep doing wrong things and then attacking me for pointing it out. I couldn't care less if you don't like my language. You were in the wrong, repeatedly, including lying about me personally, by saying I make assumptions about "people who disagree with me" and that this "disagreement" was about "interpretation," rather than clear and evident fact.
Take a walk, or I'll ban you from my journal permanently.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I see a pattern: you keep doing wrong things and then attacking me for pointing it out.
Dude, how is it that you simply not grasp that this is exactly the behavior I'm seeing.
Getting banned from your journal I can live with. What I cannot accept is that somebody with your total intolerance of other people's opinions has infinite mod points!
Re: (Score:2)
Sad that you can't post without lying.
Re: (Score:2)